Wilson Vehicle Hire Pty Ltd v Doss - [2024] QMC 19

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Wilson Vehicle Hire Pty Ltd v Doss [2024] QMC 19

PARTIES:

WILSON VEHICLE HIRE PTY LTD

(plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim)

v

DOSS, by her subrogated insurer (NRMA)

(defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim)

FILE NO/S:

M50247/22

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Claim and Counterclaim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 October 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 August 2024

MAGISTRATE:

Acting Magistrate Janelle (Payne) Boegheim

ORDER:

1.     THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM IS DISMISSED.

2.     JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF BY COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST THE DEFENDANT BY COUNTERCLAIM IN THE SUM OF $6,287.37 BEING 70% OF $7,553.66 ($5,287.56) PLUS INTEREST FROM 30 NOVEMBER 2021 TO 2 OCTOBER 2024 ($990.81).

3.     BY CONSENT, THE PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT BY COUNTERCLAIM IS TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFF BY COUNTERCLAIM, OF AND INCIDENTAL TO THE PROCEEDINGS, ON A PARTIAL INDEMNITY BASIS, FIXED IN THE SUM OF $12,998.91.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS - NEGLIGENCE – LOSS AND DAMAGE – whether plaintiff has suffered or proven any loss.

TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - APPORTIONMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY AND DAMAGES - APPORTIONMENT – Where defendant’s car travels through a green traffic light but becomes stuck in the middle of the intersection due to the queued traffic. Where plaintiff’s in adjacent turning lane with right of way – where defendant manoeuvres slowly into defendant’s path of travel in attempt to safely clear intersection – whether plaintiff entered intersection on red or orange light and travelling too fast for conditions or to avoid defendant.

Transport Operations (Road Use Management--Road Rules) Regulation 2009, reg 61(5)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr, 490, 683, 514-516.
Freeleagus v Nominal defendant [2007] QCA 116
Rains v Frost Enterprises Pty Ltd [1975] Qd R 287

COUNSEL:
Mr L Tassell for the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim
Mr P Van Grinsven for the Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim

SOLICITORS:
Greystones Lawyers and Corporate Advisors for the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim
Turks Legal for the Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Summary

This judgment arises after the hearing of a claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident on 30 November 2021 at the intersection of Miles Platting Road, Padstow Road and Logan Road at Eight Mile Plains.

For the reasons that follow, I find both the plaintiff’s driver and the defendant were at fault (in different proportions) but the plaintiff did not suffer any loss as a result of the accident; there was there was no or negligible damage to the tow truck and the plaintiff did not prove it suffered any loss. As per the agreed quantum, there was $7,553.66 in loss and damage to the Mazda to the front passenger side and bumper.

Nature and history of the claim

For simplicity, I will refer to the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim (or where context requires, the relevant driver) as the “plaintiff” and the Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim as “the defendant”.

The plaintiff’s vehicle was a Hino tow truck, being driven by a contractor or employee.

The defendant was the driver of a Mazda 3 but the proceedings were conducted by her subrogated insurer (NRMA).

The plaintiff commenced the proceeding by…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wilson Vehicle Hire Pty Ltd v Doss and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] QMC 19
Decision Date: 2 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Wilson Vehicle Hire Pty Ltd v Doss, the plaintiff, a vehicle hire company, claimed damages from the defendant, an individual who had collided with the plaintiff's vehicle while exiting an intersection. The defendant counterclaimed for damages, asserting that the plaintiff's vehicle had entered the intersection illegally, at an excessive speed, and caused the collision. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff had suffered any loss and, if so, apportioning responsibility and damages between the parties.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiff had entered the intersection on a red or orange light, and if they were travelling at a speed too fast for the conditions or to avoid the defendant. Additionally, the court had to assess the fault of each party and apportion the damages accordingly. The central issue was the sequence of events leading up to the collision, particularly the traffic light conditions and the speed of the plaintiff's vehicle.

The court found that the plaintiff's vehicle had entered the intersection on a red light and was travelling at an excessive speed, which contributed to the collision. The court concluded that the plaintiff had not suffered any loss as a result of the collision. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff was 30% responsible for the collision, while the defendant was 70% responsible. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and ordered judgment in favour of the defendant by counterclaim for 70% of the damages claimed, plus interest, and costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's claim be dismissed, judgment be entered in favour of the defendant by counterclaim for $6,287.37, plus interest, and that the parties were to bear their own costs, with the plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim to pay the defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim's costs, fixed in the sum of $12,998.91.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM IS DISMISSED.

2. JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF BY COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST THE DEFENDANT BY COUNTERCLAIM IN THE SUM OF $6,287.37 BEING 70% OF $7,553.66 ($5,287.56) PLUS INTEREST FROM 30 NOVEMBER 2021 TO 2 OCTOBER 2024 ($990.81).

3. BY CONSENT, THE PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT BY COUNTERCLAIM IS TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFF BY COUNTERCLAIM, OF AND INCIDENTAL TO THE PROCEEDINGS, ON A PARTIAL INDEMNITY BASIS, FIXED IN THE SUM OF $12,998.91.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Wilson Vehicle Hire Pty Ltd v Doss [2024] QMC 19
PARTIES:	WILSON VEHICLE HIRE PTY LTD (plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim) v DOSS, by her subrogated insurer (NRMA) (defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim)
FILE NO/S:	M50247/22
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Claim and Counterclaim
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	2 October 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 August 2024
MAGISTRATE:	Acting Magistrate Janelle (Payne) Boegheim
ORDER:	1. THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM IS DISMISSED. 2. JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF BY COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST THE DEFENDANT BY COUNTERCLAIM IN THE SUM OF $6,287.37 BEING 70% OF $7,553.66 ($5,287.56) PLUS INTEREST FROM 30 NOVEMBER 2021 TO 2 OCTOBER 2024 ($990.81). 3. BY CONSENT, THE PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT BY COUNTERCLAIM IS TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFF BY COUNTERCLAIM, OF AND INCIDENTAL TO THE PROCEEDINGS, ON A PARTIAL INDEMNITY BASIS, FIXED IN THE SUM OF $12,998.91.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS - NEGLIGENCE – LOSS AND DAMAGE – whether plaintiff has suffered or proven any loss. TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - APPORTIONMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY AND DAMAGES - APPORTIONMENT – Where defendant’s car travels through a green traffic light but becomes stuck in the middle of the intersection due to the queued traffic. Where plaintiff’s in adjacent turning lane with right of way – where defendant manoeuvres slowly into defendant’s path of travel in attempt to safely clear intersection – whether plaintiff entered intersection on red or orange light and travelling too fast for conditions or to avoid defendant. Transport Operations (Road Use Management--Road Rules) Regulation 2009, reg 61(5) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr, 490, 683, 514-516. Freeleagus v Nominal defendant [2007] QCA 116 Rains v Frost Enterprises Pty Ltd [1975] Qd R 287
COUNSEL:	Mr L Tassell for the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim Mr P Van Grinsven for the Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim
SOLICITORS:	Greystones Lawyers and Corporate Advisors for the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim Turks Legal for the Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim